Talk:Ramanuja

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions How you can help: Notice board - Discussion board
???	This article has not been rated yet on the quality scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions How you can help: Notice board - Discussion board
???	This article has not been rated yet on the quality scale.

Contents 1 Who said it? 2 Complaint moved from Talk:Main Page 3 Comment moved from article 4 POV

[edit] Who said it?

Against the Advaita contention that perception cannot make known distinctness but only homogeneous being since distinctness cannot be defined, well, sorry, perception makes known generic characters (cowhood and the like) that differentiate things. If what you Advaitins say were true, why should not a person looking for a horse be satisfied with a buffalo? Remembering could not be distinguished from perceiving, because there would be only the one object (being). And no one would be deaf or blind. Furthermore, Brahman would be an object of perception and the other sources (prameya).

---

Just one thing, are these lines said by Ramanuja? If it is not, it should be purged for Wikipedia is not a place of discussion. If it is, there is nothing in the para that signifies it is what he said. If it is based on what he said, the lines should be made more NPOV, especially the question marks and the words "you Advaitins"

[edit] Complaint moved from Talk:Main Page

There is an article on Wikipedia which says Sri Ramanuja (1017-1137 AD) was a Visishtadvaita Saint ,philosopher and that he was also known as Yetiraja , Udeyavar etc.,

"YetirAja" should be spelt as Yatiraja "Udeyavar" should be spelt as Udayavar .

Sri Ramanuja authored the nine gems of Visishtadvaita philosophy also known as " Navarathnas" , Viz. Gadyatrayam ( 3 gadyas), Vedanta Saaram ,Vedartha Sangraham,Vedanta Deepam ,Sri Bhashyam ,Gita Bhashyam (The commentary for the "Bhagavad Gita" ) and the Nithya Grantham ,totalling 9 works in all may be appended to the Wikipedia article which mentions about only 7 of Ramanuja's works .

Below is the Wikipedia version of Ramanuja's works

Ramanuja's most famous work is known as the Sri Bhasya. It is a commentary on the Brahma Sutras.

Gadhya Thrayam (three compositions) - Vaikunta, Sriranga and Saranagati Gadhyam are great works in Vaishnava philosophy.

His other works are:

Vedanta Sara (essence of Vedanta) Vedanta Sangraha (a resume of Vedanta) Vedanta Deepa (the light of Vedanta). --The preceeding was originally posted by mistake on Talk:Main Page by User:Krishvasu 06:55, 20 August 2006 UTC --

[edit] Comment moved from article

I moved the following from the article:

"History shows that the followers of Sankara are answerless till date to the strong arguments of Ramanuja (in his sri bhashya) and his followers(satadushani of desika,...). In a bid to escape strong objections raised by Ramanuja and his successors, most advaitins take a disguised route of neo vedantism, where they argue that vaishnavism is one another path to realise brahman."

The above observation is baseless and dubious.Sanakara's exposition stands brilliantly against the position taken by Ramanuja.The post enstenien postulates establish that there is interconnectedness and at the end it is only the 'imperishable energy that alone existed and can exist' The analogy that the matter also is related to soul if taken, also has to accept that matter is perishable.What 'perishes'with time cannot be GOD /Brahman or divine.Science establishes that the entire univers itself will perish one day.The most unfoirtunate twist in history that followers of Ramanuja indulged in mindless rebuke of advaitha, engaged in a hate attitude towards any one who conceived God in all forms.The practice of prosyletisation in India is restricted to the semetic approach of non acceptance of other paths by the Ramanuja followers.If Vishnu is omnipresent He is present in all form , say Shiva,Brahma or any forms that one may liketo perceive.Non acceptance of this basic principle of oneness is defied by the followers of Ramanuja.More than love He preached, they became slaves to the vested interests in promoting anti Shiva attitude, which non of our scriptures allow.In Kaivalya Upanisha it is clearly stated

"Mayyeva skalam jatham, Mayi sarvam prathishtitham, Mayi sarvam layam yaathi, thathbrahmadvayamasmyaham" Ramanuja came at a time our practical religeon needed a boost.It has to be lowered from the high point of vedantha to commonman's comprehension of divinity and Bhakthi was the universal emotion which could ignite souls.Infact the best of sthithras praising vishnu has come from Sankara, such as Mohamudgara(Bhaja Govindam),Bhashya for Vishnusahasranama,besides scores of sthuthis.Sankara also advovcated Bhakthi, when he states in his work "Viveka Choodamani" thus: 'Mokshasadhana samagryam bhakthireva gariyasi'

S.Padmanabhan,Chennai e-mail: padyiyer@yahoo.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.144.21.104 (talk • contribs) .

--since it wasn't appropriate for the article space, being a violation of WP:NPOV, but perhaps it was meant for this page. Antandrus (talk) 03:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I have tried to remove POV from this artilce. sentenses such as : History shows that the followers of Sankara are answerless till date to the strong arguments of Ramanuja (in his sri bhashya) and his followers(satadushani of desika,...). In a bid to escape strong objections raised by Ramanuja and his successors, most advaitins take a disguised route of neo vedantism, where they argue that vaishnavism is one another path to realise brahman. are blatently POV. Someone with more knowledge of the subject needs to rewrite this article from a neutral point of view. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 02:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for working on that. It's been a long-standing problem, though be aware that I'm working on a complete revision of the article (which, as of now, is almost entirely unreferenced), and those entire sections are probably going to be removed shortly—as in, after I finish finals in a few weeks. --Xiaopo (Talk) 20:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I added the Sanskrit template again, because while Ramanuja was undoubtedly Tamil, his name is Sanskrit: it refers to Lakshmana, and it's a translation of his Tamil name. --Xiaopo (Talk) 20:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)